Talk:Killing of James Boyd

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Shooting of James Boyd. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

just bizarre ideas about NPOV

more breakdown to separate topic:

elinruby wrote, you still say that because you see the prosecutor's remark at the preliminary hearing that Sandy and Perez were not seperated after the shooting as some sort of insinuation of collusion,

Please give us some other reason that the prosecutor's remark is in the article, than an insinuation of collusion

elinruby wrote, you therefore can add about 250 words on why the current thinking is that investigators suggest not to interrogate right away.

Yes, I can. And I did. it's called NPOV and is a requirement of Wikipedia. My word count for this addition to the article is 151 words, not 250 as you claim. You were off by a HUGE factor. Did you estimate? Did you miscount? Did you purposefully inflate the numbers to make yourself look good?

Dude.

• Maybe that editor wanted to quote the prosecutor's opening statement ;) The prosecutor alleges misconduct, that is the job.

Yes it is, and to provide a NPOV, it's my job as editor to provide the opposing viewpoint. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• I can't believe you counted the words.

I didn't. My computer did. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Why in the world would you think that *I* think more words make me look better?

You said that I'd added 250 words, as if that some a massive tome that bogged down the entire article. In truth it was 151 words, 40% less than you claimed. This is ANOTHER example of your many exaggerations. I'm not good at brevity but I think it was (to paraphrase Winston Churchill) 'like a woman's skirt; long enough to cover the subject, but short enough to create interest.' Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Mind-boggling.

Some minds are more easily boggled than others. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• STOP THAT.

Sorry but I'm unable to tell what will, and what won't, boggle your mind. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• You are very bad at guessing what I think and most of your guesses are insulting.

"Insulting?" You mean like you, calling me "dude"? Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You're insulted by "dude'??????Elinruby (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• The point is, that all that stuff about sleep and so forth, I believe it is true. But that doesn't mean it goes here.

It should directly follow the prosecutor's statement alleging wrongdoing on the part of the APD in delaying the interviewing of the officers. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Did ANYONE at anypoint, in testimony or a press interview, ever make this point? If not it does not go in this article

Please show us a WP policy that requires that everything that's mentioned in this article be said in testimony or a press interview. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

that would be WP:SECONDARYSOURCES. Especially the part about:

::::Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.

--Elinruby (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I did not base an entire article on primary sources I was extremely cautious in my use of the sources. I do not consider 151 words to be a large passage but I guess that is a matter of opinion. But even if it was, it's still permitted as long as I was cautious, and I was. There was no unsourced material from [my] personal experience. It was not material about living people. So NONE of this applies. You keep posting WP Policy that misses the mark. This is just begging the question. 08:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• no matter how mean you think the prosecutor was.

I don't think that the prosecutor was mean. She's just doing her job as prosecutor. Same thing I'm doing as editor. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• You are a wiki editor here and don't get a redirect Elinruby (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I do get to respond with a statement that provides a NPOV to her statements. I'll wait for your response for a few days. If one isn't forthcoming, or it's not convincing, I'll revert this edit. Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

NO NO NO You *have* to use secondary sources. You don't get to argue with what the prosecutor said, at least not in the article. If the defense attorney, or some commentator, said what you what to put in, that's another matter. I did see you put the link to that research in the External Links section and I have no issue with that -- that is where we put things that are possibly useful but not directly within the scope of the article. Elinruby (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. I DO NOT HAVE TO USE SECONDARY SOURCES and it's troubling that you make this claim when the WP policy that you quoted a few paragraphs above CLEARLY says that primary sources CAN be used, but there are limitations on it. IT CAN BE USED if an entire article is not based on it and one needs to be cautious about using large passages. The material I've used is EXACTLY on point, and that shows the necessary caution. If you can show me a WP policy that requires that that I have to get a defense attorney, or some commentator to provide the statement, please do so. Otherwise I'm going to replace the material. WP does not seem interested in replying to your Noticeboard messages, I think they want us to work it out. Given that I've not touched any of your material that is OR that is based on your interpretation of what witnesses are saying on video from cameras in the courtroom, as a compromise, you should allow this material to stand. ESPECIALLY since, contrary to your opinion, it IS allowed per WP policy. Your references to WP policy continually are not on point, as I've shown repeatedly. 08:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You're wrong in a number of ways but to address the actual issue here the above was carelessly stated. You cannot, in the voice of wikipedia, say "the prosecutor said this but what she said is wrong." NOW. If the defense attorney refuted whatever it was you are arguing with (been so long I forget) then you can quote him to your heart's content. Ditto if some commentator took issue, then go to town. Well, within due weight, but we've been so busy with NPOV that we haven't really gotten to that yet. Elinruby (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that you've failed to do as I requested, "... show me a WP policy that requires that that I have to get a defense attorney, or some commentator to provide the statement " Instead you've given me what seems to be your opinion on the matter. My opinion is different. The comments are pertinent and I think they belong. I'll give you couple more days to find the WP policy that I requested, then I'm going to revert your edit.

I'm not the one who is saying that the prosecutor is wrong, it's experts who have done appropriate research and authorities such as the IACP and the Force Science Institute. 06:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

OK? Did *they* comment on the topic of this article? If not then it should stay in the See also section.

Indirectly, they did. But you STILL have not provided support for this opinion, that they must comment on the "Shooting of James Boyd," and so I'll disagree. They commented on a statement made during the trial. I still see no reason not to include it in the body of the Article. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there a page on wikipedia that talks about this? If so a link might be possible. I'm sort of sympathetic to your point, but you still are advocating.

Providing NPOV when only one viewpoint is presented, is hardly advocating. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me make a suggestion. You feel like the prosecutor was insinuating something. I say that's what prosecutors do.

I agree, but that's not a reason not to provide NPOV. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

How about, instead of the two of us destroying our carpal tendons over this, we concentrate on the article restructuring?

I see no reason that we can't do both. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I've asked you some questions about it and you haven't answered them yet.

Sorry, I didn't see them. I'll go take a look when this is finished. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

But if we put everything from the primary hearing together, and everything about the trial together --which I think we agreed to-- maybe this will not look as much like a personal attack. The problem may be that this is in an account which attempts a consensus timeline. For what it's worth, the defense attorney, as I recall, said at the preliminary hearing that the officers had no way of knowing that Boyd was mentally ill. Which *I* think is nonsense, but there you go.

I think that comment is wrong too. I think that the officer DID know that he was mentally ill. Hence Sandy's statement referring to him as a "lunatic." His ravings about being the DOD, being able to kill them with his thoughts and then bring them back from the dead, that he was working for the DOJ would quickly demonstrate to him that fact. The Open Space officers had no idea of his illness before they contacted him but once they did, they should have quickly become aware of it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Once we are in the proposed format, with dueling ridiculousness from the lawyers, the preliminary hearing may not seem anywhere near as important as it did in the 24-hour news cycle where it was covered.

To answer your actual question though, the policy is no original research, WP:NOR, which is prominently linked on the original research noticeboard where this question is, so I would have thought that was obvious. But ok. There's your link. You want the material to go in, so it's up to you to demonstrate that it complies. It doesn't, but I'll listen to you if you want to argue it.

Here's what it says there, "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)" Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

My question was "If you can show me a WP policy that requires that that I have to get a defense attorney, or some commentator to provide the statement, please do so." The material does have "reliable published sources," and it is "related directly to the topic of the article," the Shooting of James Boyd, and it does "directly support the material being presented" just as does the comment from the prosecutor. I saw nothing there that says that someone who is not directly involved in the incident can't comment on a side matter that was raised by someone who is directly involved. As long as it pertains to the topic of the article, and is pertinent, it can be used, since it's not prohibited by WP policy. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "careful" use of a primary source, because those journals would be secondary sources

At one point you were arguing that they were primary sources. You wrote, "NO NO NO You *have* to use secondary sources." Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

just fine if the article was about how to get a coherent account of events from policemen involved in officr-involved shootings.

When someone, not sure who it was, brought in the prosecutors statement to insinuate that delaying the questioning was inappropriate, then it's fair and reasonable to provide a NPOV comment to counter that. The article AT THAT MOMENT BECAME "about how to get a coherent account of events from policemen involved in officer-involved shootings." Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

A careful use is agreeing with you that Sandy has a rifle not a beanbag shotgun because all of the officer statements to the homicide detective agree that Sandy had a Taser shotgun and a rifle. So if he was talking about a shotgun he probably meant the taser shotgun he was holding, right. That's OR but was needed and even important imho -- see remarks to @Fyddlestix: on the subject. Here you just want to refute a possible insinuation that everyone but you has forgotten. [Emphasis here from Beanyandcecil] Elinruby (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems as if you're saying that since it's a minor point to other editors (the 3 or 4 that are involved currently) that I should just forget about it? Not gonna happen. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

trollish questions, answered

"::elinruby wrote, exactly how much money is the City of Albuquerque paying out to settle court cases?

Don't know. Don't care. I have no idea what this has to do with the shooting of James Boyd, the topic of this Article. Sounds like yet ANOTHER article for you to write about the problems in the city of Albuquerque. Are you a resident? Are you on a political committee of some sort? Are you a community organizer or activist? Do you have any conflicts of interest? Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)"

I have previously answered the COI questions further up the page, just last night. If you can't find it blame your own linear feet of obstruction.

I'm reminded that MANY times you asked me similar COI questions. It was many more times than I've asked you. Beanyandcecil (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Because you keep ducking the question. Based on your answers (I am not a city of Albuquerque employee) you could be one of the many many police officers who have retired since this incident, but were involved in it. A *former* employee. You could be related to the defendants. You could be a defense expert witness. You could be reputation.com, or something like it. However, the point of COI is to identify editors who can't be neutral, and you are definitely not neutral whoever you are so it almost doesn't matter. The whole point is that you can provide input on an article if you have a COI but you are supposed to be open about it. You say you don't. Well and good. Elinruby (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm ducking the question??? Good grief. On just this page I've asked you well over 60 questions and you've answered only a few of them. There are many more on the other two pages that you started to discuss this incident and discussions about it. I don't think you've got much room to talk about ducking ... question[s]. Remember the first time that you claimed that you were not aware of any unanswered questions [and claimed that I was] confused and so I re−asked you about 20 of them? Your history of not answer them has not changed.

ESPECIALLY in light that in the past I've answered questions about COI's by writing these statements.

• I'm not and never have been "an APD employee."
• Pretty sure that I answered your questions about any conflict of interest that you think I might have. There isn't any.
• Nope, still no COI.
• I think this will be the third or fourth time, perhaps more, that I've answered this question. I am not, and never have been, employed by anyone or any entity mentioned in this incident. I do not have any COIs here.

Turns out that it was the fourth time that I've said that I don't have any COI's. I have NEVER ducked the question as to whether I have any COI's.

This will be the FIFTH time that I've said that I have no COI's. No I could NOT be one of the many many police officers who have retired since this incident, but were involved in it. Because, AS I SAID. "I'm not and never have been "an APD employee." No, I could NOT be A *former* employee, for the same reason. No, I could NOT be related to the defendants, because I've written repeatedly that I don't have any COI's. No, I could NOT be a defense expert witness because I've written "I am not, and never have been, employed by anyone or any entity mentioned in this incident. I do not have any COIs here."

Now you bring up reputation.com, or something like it. No, I could NOT be a member, or something like it because as I've said, I don't have any COI's.

I do have a bias, as does EVERYONE, except you, who pretends that she does not. Your bias against the police in Albuquerque is obvious from your comments in the article, here, and on the Noticeboards. But you refuse to admit it. HOWEVER, I'm trained to ignore my bias and be neutral. Given that AS I've written, "I am a retired LEO, with 30 years on the job. I spent time on an OIS (Officer Involved Shooting team) so I'm trained in these matters. I've also worked K−9, SWAT, and as a UOF (Use of Force) instructor, and I’m trained in knife combatives. I've testified as an expert on K−9 and UOF in Superior Court. I have found LEOs to be at fault in shootings, so I've worked both sides of these incidents.

Got it this time? Any chance of putting this to bed? I shouldn't have to answer the question about COI's FIVE TIMES, especially in light of your inability or refusal to answer my simple and direct questions. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean like "Are you mad?" I am going to ignore this too. We made a decent start at cooperation below, gonna go ask the question down there that I came here to ask. Elinruby (talk)

What this has to do with the shooting, though, to answer *that*, is that Sandy's lapel cam did not record and he had one of the older ones that did sometimes malfunction. But yes, when the COI goes to trial that should be a separate article, linked to a mention here Elinruby (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I still don't see any connection between Sandy's lapel cam did not record and he had one of the older ones that did sometimes malfunction. and a renewed request to see if you have any COI's. I also don't see what the amount of money ... the City of Albuquerque paid ... out to settle court cases has to do with the Article. It seems that you have quite a vendetta against APD.

I'm wondering, when I asked for your COI's, you called my requests "trollish." Was it trollish when you REPEATEDLY asked for mine? I answered more quickly than you did. Beanyandcecil (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV

IF you quote testimony from the prosecution use of force witness (A police training expert and former Los Angeles Police Department SWAT officer, Ronald McCarthy, said that Boyd "did not exhibit those actions that police officers are trained to recognize would indicate surrender" and that there "was no evidence that Boyd was surrendering at the time he was fatally shot ... because he still had knives in his possession and easily could have pulled them on officers who approached him.") you also need to quote to prosecution use of force witness. Elinruby (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

To summarize your statement, IF you quote testimony from the prosecution ... also need to quote to prosecution use of force witness. which makes no sense. I think that you MEANT to say IF you quote testimony from the prosecution ... also need to quote the defense use of force witness. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

There is nothing in NPOV that I've seen that says that anyone must post views that disagree with one another to maintain a NPOV, unless, of course, he is the sole editor of an article and then he must do it to present a NPOV. But since there are several editors involved in this Article, and it was quite long when I arrived, we can play off each other. But since you make this claim and you think this is the case, please post the appropriate material. In this case the prosecution statement is already there. I'm providing a NPOV with a statement from a defense UOF expert that refutes it. If YOU want to provide another counter statement from the prosecution expert, you are free to post it. I'm pretty sure that I'm not required to do so. But if you can show me that I'm wrong, I'll be happy to do so.

heh. Your time in court is showing, and so is the basic problem of your attitude. You are not supposed to have one underlying ideology under your edits. But let's make this easy -- this is a generic you. *The article*, if it quotes the defense on a disputed point, should also quote the other version of events. Does that help? Elinruby (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that the the basic problem of ... attitude is yours. I think that you just don't want a NPOV and you're twisting and turning to remove the balance I'm providing and to keep me from adding more. I think that you should reread this part of your message *The article*, if it quotes the defense on a disputed point, should also quote the other version of events. Emphasis Added. That's all I'm doing with the material in question. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Here are a couple of comments from various article on WP that I've found on this. I've found nothing that says that an editor must post two viewpoints, unless he is the only editor on an Article.

"Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."

|yes, and you have definitely been promoting one point of view Elinruby (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

That's because the other point of view was presented to a colossal degree before I got here. Now I'm balancing the scale, providing NPOV. While doing this I've preserved and several times, clarified the other POV. Such contributions from other editors have been minor and few. 14:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties."

Beanyandcecil (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Better yet is to not have to have these discussions because the other editor on the article is impartial, hmm? It's exhausting following you around and I wish I didn't have to do it. Elinruby (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Knife or Knives

For some reason the lede says, "When an officer tried to pat him down, he produced a pocket knife, threatening the officers with it." The source cited says this, "Boyd was sleeping or lying under something when officers approached. He came out from beneath the cover and “as the officers began to talk to him, he threatened the officers with knives."

In the next paragraph it says, "Officer Mikal Monette testified that Boyd never dropped his knife but did put it away and agree to keep his hands out of his pockets." But the source says this, "Monette spent about an hour and 10 minutes talking with Boyd, at times getting him to put his knives away and keep his hands out of his pockets. But Boyd never did drop the knives and surrender."

I'm going to change the article so that it reflects accurately what the sources say. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that and thought I fixed it. I agree with this one. Elinruby (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Information

There is material in the "Shooting" section about the findings of the DOJ report. It belongs in the section of the article that discusses the Report, "Department of Justice Investigation," not in the "Shooting" section, and it's redundant, stating about the same thing as is stated in the proper section.

I'm going to move it and do a rewrite. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I am suspicious of this given your opinions but I'll refrain from comment until I've had a chance to see what you did. Elinruby (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Moving material from the "special prosecutor" section

I'm deleting the following material from this section. It has nothing to do with the special prosecutor. I'll move it to the appropriate sections. Beanyandcecil (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

APD officer Mikal Monette had crisis intervention training and had successfully resolved hundreds of situations. He testified at trial that an APD sergeant removed him from the bargaining process, replacing him with Detective Sandy and others shortly before Boyd was mortally wounded. This was even though Monette had made some progress and had succeeded in getting Boyd, at one point, to agree to leave with him. The judge dismissed the charges of involuntary manslaughter on September 28, leaving only the more serious 2nd degree murder charges remaining. Under state law, involuntary manslaughter implies either provocation by the victim or behavior emanating from the "heat of passion." The prosecution and defense testimony concluded on October 5, 2016, with closing arguments and jury instructions scheduled for the next day.

uh... what's the appropriate section according to you? That section at the end where you've been burying things that are WP:DONTLIKEIT in your eyes? But yeah, we discussed the structure before and agreed on another one; I had the whole trial under special prosecutor because she well, she was the prosecutor, but as we discussed before, it would probably be better if we had a section for the *appointment* of the prosecutor, a section for the preliminary hearing, and a section for the trial. But yeah.... this is the sort of change we normally discuss, especially when strong feelings are involved. I will be angry if I find out you buried this crucial point.Elinruby (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It was moved to the "Officers" section. That's hardly buried. It's where it belongs. It CERTAINLY doesn’t belong in the "Special Prosecutor" section. Do you think that it does belong in the "Special Prosecutor" section? What section at the end where [you claim I've] been burying things ... are you referring to? Are you angry? 09:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I initially had everything the Special Prosecutor did under special prosecutor. At the time it wasn't clear it would make it out of the preliminary hearing. And I do have other things that I do... but to be constructive, I'll remind you that we've already agreed that a better structure would be her appointment, the preliminary hearing, the trial. It's a big edit though and I need to set the time aside. But if you want you can start on that. He would come under the trial, or at least I got that account from his testimony, and have not seen any video of his actual actions. Elinruby (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sandy's intent before shooting

This section was inserted in order to discuss the opinion that Sandy had intended to shoot and kill Boyd before he had even made contact with him. This would be necessary for a charge of first degree (premeditated) murder. Anyone reading this could go either way on whether he had this intent or not.

As has been mentioned in the article, as soon as the prosecution rested, the judge who heard the case sustained a motion from the defense to dismiss the first degree murder charges, leaving only the second degree murder charge against both officers, and an charge of aggravated assault against Sandy, stating that the prosecution had not proved murderous intent, the topic of this section. Beanyandcecil (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

• I realized from Elinruby's comment that I got this wrong. It's corrected in my response to her. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to insert a statement and a citation, to that effect in the next few days but I'd like some discussion about it first. Beanyandcecil (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm really sure that 1st-degree went away well before that, because there was a huge outcry about the fact that 2nd-degree was the most they were charged with. However, when I tried to research this, all I found was the initial filing, which does have the option of 1st degree. I'll try agin. I suspect this happened about the time that the special prosecutor took over, but I don't have a reference that says this now. The point about premeditation is important, as the people in Albuquerque still think he is guity of first degree because of that video. You can propose another wording if you like but it should take this into account. Elinruby (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I GOT THIS WRONG! The FIRST DEGREE MURDER CHARGE went away after the preliminary hearing. It was THE MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE that went away after the defense rested. It's stated correctly in the Article, but I messed it up here. Nonetheless, there needs to be a statement inserted in the Article to the effect that since the judge removed the first degree murder charge, that his ruling meant that there was no premeditation necessary to a first degree murder charge that could be upheld.

mmmmm I thought that was involuntary manslaughter. But again, I don't have a source that says it happened before that. I don't question the statement that they were initially charged with open murder and someone ruled out first degree murder. I agree it should be in there, and would put it in myself if I had the details. I don't right now though and it does need a reference. If you have one, then fine.Elinruby (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you are looking at the dismissal of the voluntary manslaughter charge. Pretty sure I looked at your source and was confused about why you thought it proved your point. I have a gajillion windows open from the stuff below and can't find it right now but I found an article last night, local news coverage, that says that when the special prosecutor took over she filed (not sure of terminology exactly) the open murder charge to encompass 2nd degree on down to involuntary manslaughter. Written at the time not a hurried summay, so probably accurate. I'll put in in here later as I'll probably find it when I start closing windows. Elinruby (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the news release at the bottom of this page. "On Monday, January 12, 2015, criminal informations were filed in the Second Judicial Court in connection with the fatal shooting of James Boyd. The informations contain a single count of open murder against both Albuquerque Police Officers Keith Sandy and Dominique Perez." [Emphasis Added] [1]

Here's the news story that talks about the dismissal of the first degree charges, "Prosecutors originally filed first-degree murder charges against former APD officers Keith Sandy and Dominique Perez in the death of James Boyd. Those charges were dismissed during the preliminary hearing in which Judge Neil Candelaria bound the men over for trial. First-degree murder requires premeditation." [Emphasis Added] [2]

Later. I gotta go. Elinruby (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

First, I don't think that your statement ... as the people in Albuquerque still think he is guilty of first degree because of that video is accurate. I'm sure that SOME people there think that way, and many of them may be quite vocal, but to state it this way means that EVERYONE there thinks this way. I'm quite sure that's incorrect.

People in Albuquerque can think anything that they want but it just demonstrates that they just don't understand the law. The prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandy intended to murder Boyd based on the 'shoot him in the penis' statement. Therefore it was removed from the jury's consideration. The public tends to convict defendants based on what they read in the press, and the press certainly wasn't neutral in this case. Before the defense opened its case, the press certainly didn't provide the LE side of the case. And even then they didn't give the same weight to it that they gave to the prosecution arguments. OTOH the jury hears the pertinent evidence and they have a much better understanding and knowledge of what happened and why it happened. Hence the jury's decision (actually lack of a decision).

I don't see why the wording of an article on WP should take into account the feelings of the people of Albuquerque. Did I misunderstand? Can you explain please? Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably. See my answer below to the new editor who came through the other day and questioned some stuff. New to the page, I mean. I haven't looked at his/her edit history. Note that the sources provided are just half a dozen of the better references. Then there are the comment sections, forums and social media, which really can't be used in an article like this, but are part of what the RS are talking about. The criterion is notability. APd claims people were rioting over this. I'd say it was an unnecessary use of force myself, but either way it is notable since it got many many news stories about the "riots" alone and more about why they happened, which are more useful imho. Hope that helps Elinruby (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concept of notability, but "the feelings of the people of Albuquerque [should not affect] the wording of an article on WP." That is not to say that the riots and other fallout should not be mentioned, just that feelings should not be an issue as to what is, and what is not discussed, or how something is described. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

James Boyd was not "obese"

According to the autopsy, Boyd's BMI was 29.80. Per the NIH, that is defined medically as "overweight." One is not "obese" until the BMI reaches 30.

I'm going to change this part of the physical description of him in the Background Section in the next couple of days. Beanyandcecil (talk) 01:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

where are you getting this BMI? Elinruby (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It's in the autopsy report that I linked in the first footnote. 04:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanyandcecil (talk • contribs)

Page?Elinruby (talk) 13:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"Death Investigation Report page 4 of 30." "BMI: 29.80" 15:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanyandcecil (talk • contribs)

K thanks. I see it. I think it's a nitpick (29.9 v 30?) but I'm not going to argue over this particular word; Activist must have put that there, cause I didn't, and I don't really care. Just wanted to be sure it was somewhere, as I hadn't noticed it. The page number should also in the article reference if it isn't already. Elinruby (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It probably is a nitpick. But I think it was there for only one reason – to give the impression that Boyd was not a threat. After all, if he's a 'big fat 'OBESE' pig,' he's not in any shape to fight or be a threat. But that's just BS. As I said earlier, one does not have to be an Olympic athlete to slit a throat with a knife. I wasn't going to put the BMI into the article, I think it's superfluous, but I didn't want to let the "obese" statement stand. Beanyandcecil (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, I am not the Activist whisperer. Strictly speaking if you round up he was obese

"Strictly speaking" the figure is "29.80" not 29.9. And it's already been rounded to two decimal points. He is properly defined as "overweight" not "obese." Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

but I don't see why why we need to memorialize that. It might even be against the BLP policy, since he is dead and probably would not have wanted to be famous for being fat. Not to mention unkind. I am fine with just not addressing his BMI. Activist may have another take on the matter if he comes back through here but if he's no longer participating then I see no reason why I myself should champion this particular edit.

Since we're picking nits over particular words I don't want to attempt a big structural edit -- or lede rewrite, which will necessitate a big structural edit -- here on the article itself. I have moved a copy of the article to my sandbox and am working there. Not much to see there right now but a mess and I am again at the point of needing break but if you want to discuss feel free to look and comment. Elinruby (talk)

Protests

In the "Protests" section there is a paragraph about another shooting, that of Alfred Redwine. This shooting does not appear to have any connection to the incident under discussion except that, coincidentally, it occurred on the same day as a protest of this incident and that Redwine's death also resulted in protests.

I plan to delete that paragraph since it is completely off topic for this discussion. Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It has everything to do with it and so do the other shootings that should be in there. Albuquerque has a pattern of shooting people who are mentally ill.

If you want to do another article based on the DOJ Report, it certainly has a place there. It DOES NOT have a place in this article, under the "Protest" heading. I'm going to move the comments about Redwine to the section on the "History of APD Police Shootings" where it belongs. 06:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually I have no problem with that, assuming you are just moving without editing. The article structure does need to change, as previously discussed.Elinruby (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You might want to check the article. I did some editing. Since there was only anti−LE material there, I had to provide some NPOV. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL: there is nothing in the Article that says anything about Redwine being mentally ill. or are you going to claim that putting a gun to one's head constitutes mental illness? Are you going to broad brush EVERY shooting that APD has for the rest of your life, with this? Are you EVER going to realize that EVERY shooting needs to be judged on its own merits, or lack thereof? 07:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

assuming this is a rhetorical question. Don't have time to look at article, been too busy with walls of text. If *I* put it there it was in the source. If the source is not cited it should be, as BLP policy would apply. I'll check this out when I get to the article Elinruby (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)!

Actually, there were THREE questions in that paragraph, NONE of them were rhetorical. Re your been too busy with walls of text comment – things would go much smoother between us if you'd refrain from cheap shots like this. I understand that you're frustrated because I keep posting material to balance to NPOV in this article, but that's how it should have been written in the first place. Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any intention at all of entertaining the idea that your preonceptions might be mistaken? Elinruby (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

What preconceptions are you referring to? 06:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

scroll up Elinruby (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the sort of vague response that may make you feel good, but does nothing to further communication. I'll try again, What preconceptions are you referring to? }} Beanyandcecil (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's start with "anti-LE material" and your assumption that I am guarding it. I want this article to be factual and completely accurate. Period. I see *you*, in case you hadn't noticed, as trying to take out factual material that is not flattering. Elinruby (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

That's my impression based on many of your edits and your general comments here and on other Talk pages. When you claim that ... the people in Albuquerque still think he is guilty of first degree ... you display your feelings and your agenda. I doubt that you are any sort of spokesperson for the people in Albuquerque, yet you presume to tell us how the people there think.

If material is factual, I have no problem with it. But there was much material that is not factual that is only there to influence the readers against LE. A recent example was the false material that Boyd was "obese." In fact, his BMI shows that he was not and the coroner said that his abdomen was "flat." Yet someone, you said it was probably Activist, claimed that he was "obese." Someone, I'd bet it was you, put a "dubious" tag on the statement that there had been less shootings since the consent decree. In fact, the stats support it.

The comment "... but the shootings continue" overlooks the fact that until we develop technology that reliably allows LE to immediately and reliably stop someone 'in their tracks' there will be shootings involving LE. It's the human condition and it's hardly limited to Albuquerque. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

yep the dubious tag was me and I reverted your edit. As vandalism.

You calling my edit vandalism doesn't make it so. It was properly cited from a RS and two other RS, also ran the story. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You can't jusy disregard other editors' concerns like that. I explained why below.

And yet you disregard [my] ... concerns regularly. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The actual number is fuzzy. If you look at the list I compiled and linked to (the see also on the history of police violence setion) you will see that some of the incidents look, offhand, quite possibly justified, but this is again based on biased news coverage. BUT. If someone has "cop killer" tattooed on his knuckles it may well be entirely true that he was driving around the city shooting at police. It's worth noting that mental health care in NM has been decimated,

Nothing to do with LE, except that they are tasked with the 'after−action cleanup.' Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

but anyway, hmm, then there is the upstanding citizen who kidnapped his wife and locked her in the trunk of his car because she got a restraining order... but if I don't want to second guess those, well, are we counting bad shootings? On what basis? The review process says they are all good. That list is far from complete and anytime I look for a reference for some part of it I find more. It does not, for instance, include the infamous incident where they set a man covered in gasoline on fire by tasing him or the one where they tased off a man's ear. He got a $300,000 settlement and mysteriously wound up dead about about a week later. Probably coincidence, I am sure, heh. Anyway. Take a look at the links below please. When people riot about something it is objectively true that they are upset about it.

Not true by any reasonable standard. when people riot [protest] ... it is objectively true that they are upset about it. "Rioting" has little to do with protesting, although it is sometimes a spin−off from a protest. The latter is peaceful, legal and a completely appropriate part of the process. But "rioting" is obviously NOT peaceful, is ILlegal, and is a completely INapproprriate part of the process. Destroying public and private property, committing arson, throwing objects at the police, and stealing property from stores and other commercial property, are violations of the law and are not part of a protest, which is constitutionally guaranteed. I've been at several riots. Often the people involved don't even know what's going on other than a very broad view of some imagined wrong committed against them by the government. Usually it's just an opportunity to steal, burn, and act a fool with little fear of apprehension or conviction. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Saying so does not necessarily mean I agree with them, although I have already told you that it's my opinion that something is seriously wrong when this stuff happens. But that doesn't necessarily mean I am running around saying APD is evil. I do however note that the federal monitor says that the APD is not really trying to make changes

If there is a RS for that information then post it. I don't mind at all. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

and that the department leadership pronoted a "killology" class days after they signed the agreement you say they are following.

Sorry but this is wrong, and I think is indicative of your issues with APD. the department leadership DID NOT promote this class. ONE lieutenant did. Had you said something like "a member of the department staff promoted the class" you'd have been correct and accurate. Instead, what you wrote, again betrays your agenda against the APD. This was one officer, promoting a class that his wife was sponsoring, NOT an endorsement by the department. Your statement here is HIGHLY misleading. BTW, do you even know what those classes are about? Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That's the washington post reference (#4) in my answer under the shoot in the penis section. These don't exactly address numbers, no, but it makes me a little more adamant (heh) that any numbers from APD need careful scrutiny. Maybe they are correct. And probably not given this police chief's history. If you want you can say that *he* says so then ok perhaps, but then you need to include the people who beg to differ.

If you are skeptical about the numbers, it's apparent that you've already assumed they come from the Chief, without anything more than another feeling, then you are free to go find numbers that contradict what the source that I posted said. AGAIN, I don't need to post such information. I have no reason to believe that they came from the Chief so there is no need to find people who disagree with him. And, if they exist, they would have come up during my search for the comment that I posted. But they didn't. If you have some information from a RS please post it. And AGAN, there is no shortage of anti LE information in the article. I am merely providing the required NPOV. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want to try to verify, well, good luck with that but we can certainly discuss. Elinruby (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I came across the Killology article again, putting it here for your convenience. The WaPo article below quotes and links to this Elinruby (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, re the shooting continue, this may help you understand some of the cynicism on the subject of police pronouncements.

You've assumed, without any basis in fact, for that assumption, that the figures I posted are from the Chief. They may be, but making such an assumption, is flawed at best. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you are still operating on assumptions based on you experience in some other city. Albuquerque has had an inordinate number of police shootings for years but it is increasingly hiring Army snipers and training officers at the Coyote Canyon facility, where the curriculum focuses on security for DoE facilities ie the the nuclear stockpile, which is in Albuquerque in case you didn't know. A lot of people think the militarization started here.

I'm not in the slightest bit concerned with the militarization of the police." It's mostly an invention of the media and has nothing to do with anything real. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I was in Albuquerque then and walked within feet of where those officers were shot every day so it hit close to home for me too. But these tragic events are not a reason not to try to avoid others. A factual account of this one shooting just maybe might shed some light on what exacty the problem(s) is/are. Maybe. That's the agenda you insist I am pushing. But inserting fluff is not trying for factual. If something is true, fine. I do insist it be true, though, and what Gordon Eden says usually isn't,

That last statement is an opinion and one that probably is not supported by the facts. But it does serve to again, show your bias. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

and accusing me of bias won't change that.

It's not an accus[ation], it's an observation. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally the Alibi is the local weekly, and the author is a professor of American studies at the University of NM. Elinruby (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

oh and alibi.com/news/50849/APD-Still-Not-Meeting-Requirements.html - March 2016 Elinruby (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

does.

I agree that this source is not reliable. Your description of him as a professor of American Studies at the UNM doesn't improve that at all. Heh. But the Patriot Ledger, PoliceOne.com, and Yahoo News, are. All of them picked up Hudetz' story on the AP wire. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

You just WP:DONTLIKE it. I'm not suggesting we include this material, just explaining the context to you. The history can be sourced with sources off of JSTOR if it needs to be but I don't think it does. It's not going in the article; the fact that the shootings have been going on for forty years is a little out of scope for the article. WhatI am trying to get you to look at is the fact that time after time the shootings have been found to be justified and every single time the police chief held a press conference and praised the officer...and then the officer got a bonus from the police union... explains a certain cynicism among the populace. This is why I don't necessarily believe the spin sessions and neither does anyone else. All I am trying to get across to you is why we care about accuracy of this article even more than we do about most BLP articles. Also, I am not making any statements that the protesters were right or wrong, just that they protested, and that this received nationwide coverage and therefore meets Wikipedia's standard of notability. We can call it a protest if you want; that that's what I think it was. The police chief is the one who called it a riot. I am amused that you think a third-hand account of one of his spin sessions is reliable for a critical number but when a different spin session says something you don't like you no longer agree with him ;) Oh and what's a policeone? I need to see the written editorial policy for that one too. Yahoo News is... borderline. I think I am using it to reference something obvious. I need to know what you are trying to demonstrate with it. No matter, what there is almost definitely a better source out there at this point. Elinruby (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

repeated re-insertion of material being discussed at the OR noticeboard (V2)

This material appeared on the Talk page before the page was archived. It now appears in Archive 3. I did not have a chance to respond at that time, but I'm doing so now. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

elinruby wrote, you still say that using an image of an exhibit in a video is not original research and have essentially told me you don't what I or any other editor says about what the policy actually is. You are supposed to use primary sources carefully to avoid the sort of stupid arguments we've been having over whether that sound is "inaudible" or "shotgun" or whatever.

YOU don't care what I say about the policy – why should I care what you think about it? You obviously don't have the final word on it, I interpret it differently. I maintain, and I've successfully shown that you're wrong on this point. The photo in the video comes from court TV cameras and is on the website of a reputable new source, one that has been cited repeatedly. You seem to think that it's necessary that someone actually say that the knife is "serrated" in print before it can be describe in the article. I disagree. It's clear from the photograph and is not subject to interpretation. Let's not forget that you've repeatedly used the same source, court TV and TV news stations yourself! AND conveniently you overlook the fact that I've used another reputable source to support the statement.

In any case, the point is moot. I've used another source to show that the knife was serrated. That hasn't slowed you down from bringing this up over and over and over and over. Please stop wasting our time. I don't see a need, at this point, to respond to this again.

Elinruby wrote, It's the same source. It is fine for "3 1/2 inches" but not "lockback" or "serrated". You keep saying it's in there and um, it's NOT IN REFERENCE PROVIDED.

The reference to "lockback" AND "serrated" were BOTH in the sources I provided. They came from the transcript of Sandy's statement to the Detective during the investigation into the shooting and from the photograph that's in the video that was cited. Neither are OR. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, Also, you keep saying that policy supports you on this. Please find a link for where you see something that says it is ok to use a photograph briefly seen in a video on someone's YouTube account as a reference. [Emphasis is mine] Elinruby(talk) 15:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If something is prohibited, then WP policy, will say so. It's impossible for a policy to list everything that CAN be used. Technology changes quickly, and it would be hopeless for a policy to even try to keep pace. The policy is that if it's verifiable and published in a reliable source, it can be used. Police reports of this nature are routinely admitted during trials as evidence, they are presumed to be reliable. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's something I think you should read, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." [3] Something is OR if it is a "belief or experience of [WP} editors." The fact that the knife is a lockback and is serrated are not my opinion or experience. It's an observable fact that any educated person can see in the photo in the court TV video that's I've linked, without specialized education. And it's in a transcript of an interview in a police report. The video and the transcript have both been "published" and both are reliable and verifiable. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

If YOU can find a WP policy that prohibits the use of a photograph ... seen in a video ... please show it to us. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

YOU are using, with great frequency, testimony from court TV, that is posted on someone's YouTube account as a reference. Yet, as has been pointed out several times, when you do it, it's perfectly acceptable. When I do it, you claim that it's OR. And ACTUALLY what you're doing is far more OR than what I'm doing is. I'm using a photograph that any educated person can look at and see that the blade is serrated. It does not require special education. And it's back up by a published, verifiable, reputable source, the transcript quotation. But your citations of the testimony on the video DO require you to interpret what is being said. THAT material is obviously OR. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

it's pretty unusual for this much of the material to be video. But no, it's not OR to quote someone. It *is* OR to insert material to prove they are wrong. Elinruby (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

If what I'm doing is OR then CERTAINLY what you're doing is, as well. You're not just quot[ing] someone you are INTERPRETING what they are saying on a video. Unless you're quoting from a printed news story or from a transcript, what you are doing is OR. You just won't admit it.

I don't know what you're referring to with your statement, It *is* OR to insert material to prove they are wrong. Can you clarify please? Beanyandcecil (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby wrote, And to unilaterally act on something whether discussion has been attempted at a noticeboard. Elinruby(talk) 15:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a prohibition on act[ing] on something ... [under] discussion ... at a noticeboard? If so, please let me know. But, by deleting it, haven't YOU act[ed] on something ... [under] discussion ... at a noticeboard?Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't seen any response from WP at either Noticeboard. How long do these things usually take? You only waited a short time before you opened up a second Noticeboard discussion, not the months that you said you've waited for other editors to respond to your queries. Beanyandcecil (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

They recognize a morass when they see one ;P The answers would not be coming from Wikipedis per se; usually it's peer help from people with other questions on the board. But right now it's us and the mess about Donald Trump, and the people working on the Trump thing have their own problems. Elinruby (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Lede rewrite

I know that Elinruby has asked me not to ping her anymore but I’m going to do so now because this is a major rewrite and I'd like to get input from both her and Activist.

@Activist:@Elinruby: The lede in this article is too long and contains too much detailed information that is repeated later in the article, where it belongs. The lede at this time is about 620 words. This rewrite is about half that. If there is no discussion, I'll replace the original lede with this one in about a week.

• James Matthew Boyd was fatally shot by Albuquerque Police on March 16, 2014, on the outskirts of Albuquerque, New Mexico. A resident of a nearby subdivision called police to report that a man had been illegally camping in the hills behind his house. Two officers responded. They approached Boyd as he lay under a tarp. Boyd, mentally ill, became irate when an officer tried to pat him down. He produced two pocket knives, and threatened to kill the officers.
• They called for backup and Albuquerque police and New Mexico State police responded. A police officer with crisis intervention training tried to negotiate with Boyd, but was unsuccessful in getting him put down his knives and surrender. The negotiations were taken over by a police K−9 handler, but he too, failed to get Boyd to surrender.
• After several hours of negotiations Boyd put his knives into his pockets and said he would depart, but the officers could not permit this until they had disarmed him. They threw a flash bang device, used a Taser shotgun and a police dog, but none of these less lethal methods were successful in getting Boyd to comply. When the K−9 handler approached Boyd to re−deploy his dog, Boyd produced his knives again. Two officers said that they felt he posed an imminent threat to the K−9 handler and so they both fired their rifles to protect him. Boyd had started to turn just before they fired and the rounds struck him in the back. Boyd fell to the ground, still holding his knives. To get him to drop them, an officer shot him with three beanbag shotgun rounds, and the police dog bit him. He was taken into custody and transported to the University of New Mexico Hospital emergency room where he underwent extensive surgery. He died the next morning.
• The two police officers who had fired their rifles were charged with murder. The trial lasted for 12 days and the jury deadlocked 9-3 for acquittal. The prosecution has 30 days to refile the charges.

Beanyandcecil (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, this is a good use of ping, thank you, since there has not been much activity on the article recently. I just snapped at you when it got to be a couple dozen pings a day as I was also working on the article and was going to see the changes anyway. Yes, Activist does it, but not with that kind of frequency.

I do agree that the lede is too long. I was trying to come to a summary of events in the lede, but once the trial started there was too much detail, and especially too much disputed detail, for that to work well. However you are still uncritically accepting the defense version of events and there are several things I dislike about this version. I am willing to take another shot at a civil discussion if you are. This will take some thought though, so give me a little time to propose something else.

I too did not like the way the discussion had gone, and of course I'm willing to try again. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

But just as an example, why say "had started to turn" if the object is to cut the length of the lede? He did turn and this is undisputed.

I feel strongly both ways. The lede should be short and concise. But just saying that "Boyd turned and they shot him" makes it sounds as if it was two events separate by some time. It makes it sound as if they had seen him turn and then decided to shoot him in the back. Given the reaction time of humans at .5 to .75 seconds it happened like this. Working in their OODA loop they saw the distance between Boyd and the K−9 handler (the Observation phase), processed this to see an imminent threat to him (the Orientation phase), and decided to act by firing (the Decision phase). The final phase (Action) was then put into the loop. This Loop takes some time and so while it was going on, Boyd was in the act of turning. When they pulled the trigger he was milliseconds ahead of their act and so the bullets him him in the back and the back of his arms. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Perez testified that he perceived that Boyd had turned, interpreted it as the first step in a flanking movement and that's why he fired. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Many people schooled by TV westerns think that if bullets strike someone in the back, they're "bushwackers, lowlifes or other bad people." This puts a 'bad face' on the officers and the fact is, that sometimes it's reasonable and appropriate to shoot someone in the back. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Also he was shot in both arms as well as in the back, and these were not trivial wounds if they had to amputate an arm. Those aren't contrversial points, I don't think.

Do you want to say something like, "The rounds struck him in the back and the back of his arms?" I have no objection, other than it expands the lede, and the details of the wounds are explained later in the article in quite some detail. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The "Two officers said"... mmm this is a disputed statement and we should at a minimum say that the two officers in question, of all the officers there, were the defendants.

No objection to saying that the two officers were the defendants. The main players are Boyd, Perez and Sandy. I don't think the others need to be named in the lede. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it is important that Sandy pulled the CIT officer off because he said the officer was too close. (This was Sandy's testimony and no, it's not in the article now and yes I will get a time mark if there's no better reference than that for the statement) That one we might have to discuss,

You're ahead of me on watching the trial. I thought that Sandy moved him back because he was too close and that Sgt. Fox relieved him after this happened, and sent him down the hill. I thought that he continued to negotiate for awhile after Sandy moved him back. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Beanyandcecil: how is this different than what I said? Genuinely confused. Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

and also the fact that I don't really feel the K9 officer was "negotiating".

He thinks he was, and several news reports say something like. 'Weimerskirch took over the negotiation.' It didn't last long because he was there not to get him to surrender, as they thought that had failed, but to assist with taking Boyd into custody, since it was going to get dark in a few minutes. So there were a few commands, some back and forth (negotiations), and then the officers started the arrest attempt. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

yeah, snicker, he thinks he was, fair enough, and that was part of the problem Elinruby (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

snicker? ... part of the problem? Again you display both, your bias and how little you understand these situations in general, and this situation in particular. By the time Weimerskirch moved up the hill, it had been decided that the negotiations had failed and since the sun had already set and it was about to get dark, it was time to go to the apprehension phase of the deployment. Weimerskirch made a few comments to Boyd that some sources have called negotiation but they did not convince Boyd to surrender. He then went to apprehension. That's why he was called to the scene in the first place. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

correct me if I am wrong but you seem to be saying he wasn't negotiating at all. If so I sort of agree Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Why remove the name of the officer who threw the flash-bang? It doesn't make the article shorter (?)

None of the officers or other people involved are named in the lede. The only person who is named is Boyd. I think that if we put all of the pertinent names, Thickstun, Fox, Sandy, Perez, Monette, Ingram, Weimerskirch (I know that I've left some out) it will make it confusing and add to the length without adding any significant information. But if you want to, it's not a big deal to me. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thickston didn't say "illegally" camping, just that he was camping. For example.

That's true. Rarely do people call in with the correct crime when they call 911. They know something is wrong, but they may not know its official name. Thickstun just wanted him removed, but that will require another sentence to say that camping is not permitted in the area and will lengthen the lede. The details are explained later in the Article. But, again, if you want to put something of that nature in there, I'll be happy to take a look at it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh and the "threatened to kill" was a separate event from the first time he pulled the knives.

OK. How about if I take out the phrase, "to kill" so it says, "He produced two pocket knives, and threatened the officers." Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

This is going to be hard to resolve, but I don't like "threaten". Seems to me his stance was defensive. Sandy called it "squared off". Ready to fight but not seeking it. 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to finish something up but I'll take a shot at an alternate version soon, or, if you like, you can :::propose another version that takes the some or all of above comments into account. Elinruby (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll wait for your version, hoping it will encompass some of my suggestions. Beanyandcecil (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

will try Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

'I really do have to go but I am very happy to see the constructive tone here, didn't see anything I completely hated, really really gotta go. Will make this a priority when I am back. Elinruby (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I've been in and out finishing some other wikibusiness that is less fraught, but I have the lede off in a text document and have been thinking about it. I'd already said it was too long so we agree on that much. It is supposed to summarize the article and does not do this. Originally, when I came here, there was little that had happened. He was shot, there were protests. I found the 911 call, added some information, did a major scrub of the outraged entries, moved on. I tried to update it when the trial started but there is simply too much data and too much disputed data. So, how about we move all this stuff about the blow-by-blow into the section titled Shooting? Maybe even have an actual timeline.

Is there a time line anywhere? Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This would leave more room for information about why we even care. Which I am sure we will disagree about, but....usually when there is some sort of intractable disagreement the answer is to represent both points of view. So. A couple of preliminary points that I think are important, for discussion. And feel free to inline edit these -- I've put them into list format the better to do so

• this sequence of events did not have the outcome anyone would consider ideal (not in so mant words)

Ideal is a word that's very rarely used in standoff situations. Almost always, there is room for improvement. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• SWAT, field services and CIT were all present
• the location: a fairly affuent subdivision right next to a wilderness, yet still inside city lines

I think that the location needs to be named and described as , mountainous, unimproved, filled with cactus and other natural brush, etc. Otherwise it sounds as if it happened in the "affluent subdivision"

mmm I see the concern. But it's confusing then as to how Thickstun was able to videotape this. Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Boyd was asleep or at least lying down when Open Space arrived

I think lying down is accurate. Sleeping might or might not be. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Boyd displayed varying degrees of rationality as things who went on

According to the accounts that I've read, he was rarely rational. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• He did have two knives and produced them

It needs to be stated that he repeatedly threatened the officers with them and that he repeatedly said that he was going to kill the officers. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

he did apparently say that multiple times, based on curt testimony Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

-- not currently in article - Monette's comment that schizophrenics hate to be touched (possibly lower down, a bit in the weeds)

That might belong in an article about the characteristics of schizophrenics. Here it's a medical opinion and one that he's not qualified to give. He may have said it, I've not seen any RS that state it, but in this context, it's irrelevant, except that it is another statement that's slanted against LE. Lots of people who are not schizophrenic hate to be touched. I think he's wrong, I just looked at about a dozen sites on schizophrenia. Not one of them described this as a symptom. Not one of them even mentioned it at all. When did touching him become an issue? Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

He didn't blow up until they tried to search him. Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• this shooting came shortly before the DoJ report

It came after the investigation had been completed but before the report was released. This shooting was not investigated by the DOJ. Information about it does not belong in the lede. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

-- expect you won't want this in lede, but it's important context. Discuss.

I have no problem with mentioning it, but I don't think it belongs in the lede. The title of the Article is "The Shooting of James Boyd," and the lede should focus on that. The DOJ investigation has nothing to do with it directly. If the title was something like, "How the DOJ investigation relates to the shooting of James Boyd" it would. In the Report there was a single comment made about something the Chief had said, regarding this shooting, but they did not examine this shooting. It's side information at best. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Mistrial is important

-- Jury vote not so much imho but you seem to like that, so... discuss?

Of course the jury vote is important. 75% of the jury was convinced that there was not enough evidence to convict either officer. Only 25% of them bought into the prosecution's case. If the numbers were reversed, that too, would be important. It's important that the overwhelming majority of people who actually heard and saw all the pertinent evidence, came to this conclusion. Most of the public has done little more than watch the video and read a couple of news report, most of them favoring the prosecution side. The defense side wasn't presented, to any significant degree until the trial. The prosecution side had been presented for about two years before the trial even started. It should come as no surprise that a largely uneducated public, per your claim, thinks the officers committed first degree murder. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I started on shooting itself, but that's right, I'm proposing we take it out. But let's see if we can agree on these:

• He displayed the knives but did not usually advance more than a step or two

Agree, but it needs to be said that he assumed an aggressive stance after producing the knives. He wasn't producing them for 'show and tell.' Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just before he was shot, he turned and picked up some objects

-- we agreed that the bag was not a duffel bag and you seem fine with calling it a blue bag

I'm not thrilled with calling it just a blue bag. It's not very descriptive. The term that I originally applied "stuff sack" is a common term, it's on point, and there's even a WP page on it. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

cloth bag? It was a reusable grocery bag. Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• sequence was flash-bang, taser, then dog within seconds

Make that "Taser shotgun." A Taser is a handheld, handgun-like less lethal weapon that has a maximum range of 21' – 25'. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

-- what exactly the dog did is a bit hazy, but at *this* point he does not bite.

I don't think it's hazy that he picked up the blue stuff sack and brought it to his handler. It's obvious from the autopsy report that the only dog bites that Boyd sustained were on his lower right leg, and those occurred after he was shot. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok on shotgun, was just saving keystrokes, but where the article is concerned, sure. I agree about the leg. what I thought was hazy was what the dog did with the bag Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Real, non-sarcastic questions:

• I understand that SWAT is more likely to be involved in a shooting, but how usual is it really for multiple officers to have multiple shootings?

Most SWAT situations are resolved without anyone being shot. Most shootings happen during 'crimes in progress' calls and SWAT doesn't respond to those, unless they turn into a barricaded suspect situation. Most officers are never involved in a shooting. A few officers are involved in one shooting. A very few officers are involved in multiple shootings. I am friends with two officers, one involved in seven shootings, and the other in five. Both of them are known as "hard chargers," meaning that every day they go looking for criminals to take to jail. They study crime patterns in their cities, and so they stay in areas where the crimes are being committed. They are among officers who have the highest arrest stats on their departments. They work assignments that are likely to take them into areas of higher risk than other officers, special teams such as following career criminals, cross−agency narcotics interdiction units and K−9. If an officer just drives around "chasing radio calls" the chances of him being involved in a shooting at all, are small. Usually it's the guys who are looking for criminals that wind up in the shootings. But, at the same time, it can happen to anyone, anytime. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• In other cities is it usual for the overwhelming majority of shooting victims to be mentally ill?

Part of the problem is that your definition of mentally ill is too broad. You've defined Albert Redwine as being mentally ill and have insisted that his shooting be included in this discussion for that reason. Yet I've seen nothing that says that he was mentally ill. I've asked you to provide some support for that claim, but I've not seen anything that supports it. I've read that Albuquerque has a problem created by politicians who turned off funding for mental health programs and so those folks are now 'running the streets' untreated and unmedicated. They cause issues, people call the police, and they often don't comply 'normally' with commands. That can escalate to ugly problems, as with this incident.

Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November. 2016 (UTC)

It's a statewide problem, long story there of Santa Fe corruption there, but it disproportionately affects Albuquerque because UNMH is there and it's the bibbest city. I didn't add Redwine; whoever wrote the original article did. But I am pretty sure he was depressed and there's a reference for this on my list of shootings. Elinruby (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Is there such a thing as an average rate of police shootings?

Not really. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• What is that thing about anyone within a certain number of feet being too close?

When dealing with people armed with either blunt object or edged weapons, LEOs are 'safe' if they're a good distance away. Obviously if they move to within a couple of feet, the LEO is in danger. So in between the 'good distance' and the 'couple of feet' distance there's a critical distance that they can cover before they can be stopped with a handgun. Generally that's about 21'. It's based on reaction time and the fact that action always beats reaction. The OODA loop is involved. There's a video that demonstrated various situations that LEOs find themselves in, ranging from surprise situations where the attack is completely unexpected and the officer's gun is holstered, to expected attacks where the officer is pointing his gun at the suspect when the attack begins. The distance is surprisingly large. I've demonstrated it to several juries and they later said that they were shocked at how far away a suspect could be and still kill the officer before he could be stopped. Here's a link to the video. The full video is almost 90 minutes long. It's from the 1980's, so expect hokey and overly dramatic. The video is shown to lots of academy recruits as part of their training. [4] Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

k thanks, I think this answers the q, will look later.Elinruby (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• in other cities what proportion of officers have crisis intervention training?

I don't have exact numbers, but it's surprisingly low. Where I worked it was about 1%. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• what does that amount to usually, in time, material covered?

Classes range from 8 to 40 hours. I don't know the details of the classes. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

other point, not currently in article, is the militarization of the APD. It is also important to realize that this began after two officers were shot, and Ray Schultz vowed he was going to make sure officers were safe. Elinruby (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that the entire issue of "the militarization of police" is an invention of the media. Since the beginning of time, since there were first people charged with enforcing the regulations of society, the weapons they've used have kept pace, well, actually been way behind the curve, with the weaponry available to the criminals. Some of the defensive material, bullet resistant vests and armored vehicles are a response to what the criminals are doing. Weaponry such as guns, improved ammunition, and rifles, are a direct result of criminals moving to similar weaponry. There's really nothing new in this, EXCEPT that the media has always drawn attention to it, and lately they've sensationalized it all they can. I remember the huge public outcry when LAPD went to hollow−point ammunition. Actually it was safer in the long run, because that ammunition rarely over−penetrates the target, to continue on to endanger anyone in its path. The previously used ammunition did that much of the time. Ditto for the move from revolvers to semi−automatic pistols, the addition of bullet resistant vests and helmets, and just about everything else in the inventory. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like references for any answers that should go in the article. I am going to go think about article structure. I think we should probably just do the organization of the entire article. And please discuss at the talk page before any substantive changes now; I'm trying to trust you but yu haven't made it easy ;) Elinruby (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

A minor point that seems to need correction

I put a citation needed tag on this: "Boyd was camping in the open area behind his house since February 27, 2014,". We don't know how long Boyd had been there do we? I suspect (but have't tried yet to verify) that this is the date of the first 911 call. Noting and moving on for now. Elinruby (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

yeah, now that I have looked at the history, this was a good-faith edit by someone who felt the paragraph was wordy but made a mistake in his edit. Needs to be fixed eventually. Elinruby (talk) 09:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

changed "since" to "on", which is accurate I believe. I will address the improper removal of the source eventually, requires a manual revert. Elinruby (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your sources yet but they look plausible. I never did like the paragraph you got rid of about thickstun being terrified and like your version better I think... mmm basically that's all fine unless I find some other nit, but I did revert you over one nit last night, so lemme explain that one --"Foothill" was in that sentence, which I wrote, to describe the hill Boyd was on. "The foothills" is a strip of affluent subdivisions between Tramway Boulevard and the mountain. U Mound is not "the foothill area" unless qualified to say "where he was." If possible I would like to keep these details accurate as most people interested in the article are likely to know them. Boyd wasn't at the base of U Mound either. Whoever put that there -- I saw it wasn't you, and possibly it was even me as I wrote this sentence a while back, shortly after the event -- but whoever it was, was wrong. I am not sure if U mound is exactly the little hill he was on or if he was halfway up U Mound or what, but he was a good distance above street level. The guy who called the police videotaped the encounter with Open Space officers from the second floor of his house and seems to have been at about the same altitude.

Also, as a separate matter, I would like the park etiquette link to stay, although I am not certain whether I'd go to war over it. The reason is that harried reporters on deadline kept saying he was an "illegal camper" which is a decent summary of the Open Space officers' issue -- to be in compliance he'd have had to go about 300 yards up the mountain across the city boundary and into what is called the Sandia wilderness. (Although the part of that wilderness that is close to the city is really pretty well groomed and includes rangers and the aforesaid open space officers who mainly deal with incautious hikers who are having altitude sickness or didn't bring enough water.) But back to my point. I looked, hard, for the law he was breaking and all I found was that "park etiquette" link. I didn't go so far as to break out the legal databases but it's possible he wasn't breaking a law at all. That is why this primary source was on the words "illegally camping" -- I don't quite agree with them, but don't have a better idea how to express the situation, this has seeped into all of the coverage, and the article has bigger deficiencies. I am open to suggestions on the matter, of course, but until I hear a better idea I don't think you are improving the article's accuracy by removing that source. And don't wave your finger and say OR at me ;) We aren't suppose to parrot inaccuracies either, and coverage of this shooting has been messy to put it mildly. We had riots in Albuquerque because an AP reporter didn't realize that what Sandy used to shoot Boyd was a rifle not a shotgun. So if he said he was going to shoot him with a shotgun (which I think he did) then he was probably talking about the taser shotgun he had in his hands, see? *NOT* first degree murder as it might seem to be if you don't notice this. It was Beany who pointed this out and I originally said OR too but then I came across several sources that referred to the weapons as rifles and Taser shotguns. Until the trial coverage the only ones out there were primary source, albeit reputably published, but I decided that WP:COMMONSENSE trumps WP:OR. In this case at least. Elinruby (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

19 vs 40 redux

Now that I have waded through a lot of the material, I recognize some of the names on the family lawsuit defendant list are homicide investigators (Stone for example) so yeah, going with 19 and I removed this sentence: "Some reputable media have reported that there were more than 40 officers present.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://krqe.com/2014/10/07/boyd-shooter-welcome-to-rop-mistakes-now-cease-to-exist/ |title=Welcome to ROP |publisher=KRQE}}</ref>. "Reputable media" is a wikipedia concept, also, which readers may find sounds a bit strange. The story is otherwise good and KRQE provided some of the best coverage so I want to preserve the reference, which I suspect was used elsewhere and if so those footnotes will break Elinruby (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I am still open to the idea that 41 responded total but only 19 of them were on duty and not all of them were on the mountain at the time of the shooting. But ok, if the prosecutor says 19 at the time of shooting why enumerate errors in news coverage? Some of sources do say 40 there. But if we thing this is wrong I think we should just quote the sources we believe. This is a minor point but since the sources aren't unanimous trying for WP:WEIGHT. Elinruby (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Your statement, I am still open to the idea that 41 responded total but only 19 of them were on duty and not all of them were on the mountain at the time of the shooting. has the public picturing James Boyd standing alone on the side of a hill, surrounded by 41 police officers. That's not what happened. But if you consider the source of that number, the attorney for the family who sued the APD, it serves him well. The problem is that he's about as far from a RS as one can get. It's to his financial benefit to make the police looks as bad as possible. But the problem starts when what is sometimes considered a reliable source, such as Rolling Stone Magazine, cites that number but doesn't bother to attribute it to any source, instead writing, " "... with as many as 40 police officers reportedly joining the standoff. Which is a lie! Then Wiki editors quote it, as if it was fact, compounding the lie and misleading the readers. If that number was accurate, and 41 LEOs had Boyd surrounded, the prosecuting attorney would have used that number in her case in chief. But instead, she used the accurate number, "19." The sources aren't unanimous because they quoted an unreliable source, the Boyd family attorney. Beanyandcecil (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"I'm going to shoot him in the penis with a shotgun here in a minute"

This statement is undisputed, and should not have been removed. I was not able to revert it because of intervening edits but it's going back in. The source that says "he didn't say it" is talking about the word "taser", I believe. I haven't been in the article for a couple of weeks so there's no telling what happened with the sources but it *was* sourced and will be when I put it back in. what is controversial is whether or not he said Taser. Elinruby (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to produce some RS to prove that it's "undisputed" first - all of the sources I looked at treated it as questionable and several of them stated outright that he did not say it. I removed it as a BLP violation since it was effectively unsourced. Please present your sources here and get consensus for it before restoring. See WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

There's an extensive discussion further up this page between Beany and me about which version/transcription we should use. It got international coverage. They spent hours on this at trial. Google is your friend. I've got to stop, just spent way too long on your strange idea that thinking they shoot people in Albuquerque is "an opinion" Incidentally, though, you are right, it was the non-emergency line. This was an error in early coverage, which said 911 (I think 911 is in the title of one of the references re Thickstun; I had a brain bubble) But sure. If it lost its references somehow I'll provide a bunch when I get back. Thousands to choose from. Elinruby (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, it's undisputed that Sandy and Ware spoke to each other, and that Sandy made some sort of remark about shooting Boyd called him a lunatic. This audio was recorded on Ware's dash cam. and admitted into evidence at the trial. Sandy hasn't disputed making the statement. He testified at the trial that he regretted calling him a lunatic. He told the homicide investigator he did not remember saying anything about a penis but if the video says he did then he must have. The police department (police chief?) said he said "I am going to shoot him in the penis with a Taser shotgun here in a minute".

I do think it's likely he *meant* the Taser shotgun. He didn't have any other kind, and I hear "shotgun". But given that the blogosphere was saying that this was premeditated murder --- and there were demonstrations/riots over this ---the PD was eager to underline the less-that-lethal. The NMSP has not released Ware's interview, just an amendment to it, in which he says that Sandy was handling his Taser and that Sandy didnt say he was going to shoot him "in the nuts", he said he was going to shoot him with the Taser shotgun. This does not match the audio but he stuck to that story in his testimony at trial, although he wasn't happy while he was on the stand. But there is no question Sandy said something that contained most of those words. Note: this is me explaining this to you, not proposing text. I will put references on the above statements now -- I do understand your concern if you are just reading about this for the first time. Again, this is not proposed text -- probably too much information and too casually written. However, Sandy did say something and Beany and I agreed on the version you removed, except that Beany wants to insert [Taser] in front of shotgun. As I mentioned, there is an extensive discussion here about this, probably archived by now. My position is that the words in quotes should be exactly what he said to the extent it is possible to establish a consensus about this, and we should note that most transcriptions have (inaudible) somewhere in that sentence". They put it in different places though I am pretty sure. And some people say they hear "Taser, though I disagree and believe the RS do also. That's a bit hard to express and perhaps needs rewording but that did happen. Oh and when people are "rioting" (according to APD) because of something a person has done, they are a public figure at least with respect to that action. Elinruby (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)\*

1. Sandy's initial homicide interview <- don't think he mentions it but would have to check and not sure it's needed
2. "There is debate over what else he said – whether he said he was going to shoot Boyd in the penis as some have reported or whether he said he was bringing a less lethal weapon with him – a Taser shotgun"secondary source for disagreement
3. local weekly: "“I'm going to shoot him in the penis with a shotgun here in a second.”
4. "“When I came in here today, it was just to fall on my sword because that’s what I’ve been told. But I don’t recall. I don’t remember saying it.”
5. "Two hours before he killed Boyd, Albuquerque police officer Keith Sandy — already the subject of numerous allegations of misconduct and excessive force who nevertheless was permitted to serve on elite police units — was recorded referring to Boyd as a “f—ing lunatic,” then promising to “shoot him in the penis with a shotgun.” (The Albuquerque Police Department later insisted that Sandy threatened only to “shoot him with a Taser.”)[5]
6. "Called Boyd a “fucking lunatic” and joked to a colleague that he’d like to fire a Taser shotgun at Boyd’s penis. (He later told detectives that he and his colleagues talked so much “garbage to one another” that they developed a safe word, “china,” so that they would know when to stop joking. <---note lack of quote marks New Yorker
7. "Two hours before an Albuquerque police officer fatally shot a homeless camper, which sparked violent protest in the city, he was purportedly recorded saying he would shoot the suspect. A recording recently obtained by KOB-TV shows Keith Sandy telling a state police officer that James Boyd was a “lunatic” and he was going to shot the man struggling with mental illness “in the penis with a shotgun here in a second.”"ABQ tv station
8. "In the recording, APD detective Keith Sandy tells State Police Sgt. Chris Ware that James Boyd was a “f***ing lunatic” and that he was going to shoot him with some type of shotgun.
9. "Some news organizations reported that Sandy said he was going to shoot Boyd in the penis. That was not clear from the Journal’s review of the recording. APD has not confirmed or denied it, and a spokeswoman refused to comment."

<-- isn't this a discussion of whether or not Sandy said "Tazer"? I am pretty sure it is; That's been the focus of discussion here so far. I am still awaiting your more reliable sources whose version does not include "penis". Elinruby (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

can I stop now? I think reliable sourcing is beyond established. There's a lot more, lots of it non-RS, but still. Plenty that are. Maybe we disagree about what is a reliable source? Maybe you should show me yours.... Elinruby (talk)

There's a lot to respond to here, but going through the sources you've given:

• This is a WP:PRIMARY source. We can't make factual claims based on it as that would be original research.
• Same goes for This video. In addition to being a primary source, this has an added problem: secondary sources attest to the fact that what he says in the video is disputed and that the recording is unclear. So what you (or anyone else) think you hear in this recording is doubly suspect and obviously not a reliable source.
• It's a bit flabbergasting that you would cite this source to suggest that Sandy made the "penis" remark, given that the article directly says that while "Some news organizations reported that Sandy said he was going to shoot Boyd in the penis. That was not clear from the Journal’s review of the recording." The source supports the opposite of what you're arguing here.
• Same with This source. It says that "There is debate over what else he said – whether he said he was going to shoot Boyd in the penis as some have reported or whether he said he was bringing a less lethal weapon with him – a Taser shotgun." So this source cannot be used to suggest that Sandy actually said what you're suggesting either.
• This does suggest that Sandy made the "penis" remark, but it's an extremely low-quality source. Not only is it from a free, weekly newspaper (which tend to be less reliable, lower-quality journalism compared to a daily), but this is a news quiz not an actual news article. This would never be accepted as a reliable source if you took it to RSN.
• This is a blog on the Washington Post website, not an actual news article. It would have to be compared to other coverage and properly weighted per WP:NEWSBLOG before I'd be confident citing it as a source - especially for a claim that most other news sources don't repeat.
• This is a better source, but it doesn't support inclusion of the quote that was in the article before. We could use this to suggest that Sandy "joked to a colleague that he’d like to fire a Taser shotgun at Boyd’s penis" - but again, it would have to be weighed against the coverage that questions whether Sandy said that at all. Note also that this only supports saying that Sandy joked about shooting Boyd with the Taser shotgun - which is not what the article said before (ie, that Sandy "Sandy told Ware that Boyd was 'a fucking lunatic' and that Sandy planned to shoot Boyd 'in the penis with a shotgun here in a second.'") The source does not support that wording at all.
• This appears to be another quite low-quality source: it is a short, "breaking news" type story, and while it does say that the recording "shows Keith Sandy telling a state police officer that James Boyd was a “lunatic” and he was going to shot the man struggling with mental illness “in the penis with a shotgun here in a second.” It also starts with the caveat that "he was purportedly recorded saying..."

All in all, I find very little evidence in these sources (or anywhere else) to suggest that the material I removed from the article is "undisputed." In fact, many of the sources you just linked demonstrate it is disputed. There might be enough reliable sources of sufficient quality for the article to say that Sandy joked about shooting Boyd with the Taser. But the "penis" remark is not supported by most RS, and it certainly needs to be made clear that we're not talking about an actual firearm. Even then, this might be WP:UNDUE emphasis given the number of sources which say that it's unclear exactly what Sandy said. Certainly, any statement along the lines of "Sandy said x" should probably be attributed to a specific source rather than stated as a fact. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I am ok with attribution but we have to chose a version to attribute before we get there, @Fyddlestix:. If in fact we can't get consensus on any one version -- it's starting to look like that might be the case -- we might go through some of the the more popular versions, but I am fairly sure @Beanyandcecil: will not like that. Or we *could* say it's hard to hear and go with what was entered into evidence -- that one might fly -- but it's important to go into the confusion on this point since this was a factor in the protests and also a key question in the murder trial. Elinruby (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not what he said though, @Fyddlestix:. When he amended his statement, he said... well, what was there was a exact quote, I think. He said much the same thing when he testified. If we are going to be maidenly about the word "nuts" we should still report his remarks correctly. He says Sandy *said* Taser shotgun. Beany has made the case that Sandy must have meant the Taser, and I was able to verify that the weapon used to shoot Boyd was a rifle. So if you believe he said "shotgun" then he must have meant the Taser shotgun he had in his hands, because he didn't have another one. He himself said he was kidding and had no intention of shooting anyone with anything regardless of anything he had said. And by the way he doesn't recall what that was, but he doesn't question the video. We should quote him on that btw but getting back to this, Ware and Eden and nobody else hear the word Taser. There are several other versions and I am fine with enumerating them in the article if you want, shrug, personally. Elinruby (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually...he might have speculated like that at trial. But why don't we save some time, if we're using an indirect quote anyway and say something like "Ware testified that he took this to mean the Taser shotgun" -- I think this can be justified, I'll look. But initially at least Ware said that Sandy said the word Taser Elinruby (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not really helpful to say "he said x" or "he might have speculated.." and so on, unless you're being specific about what source you're referring to. I have no problem adding this back in if it can be accurately and properly referenced in a way that isn't undue. But you need to be a lot more specific about which sources you're referring to here. My sense is that the most we'll be able to do is a series of attributed statements along the lines of "x paper said he said y, c paper says he said z, Ware says he said w," and that it's disputed. I'll try to work up a proposal for what I think gives due weight and can properly sourced but it might take me some time. Please be patient. More important to get this right than to do it now. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

um, @Fyddlestix: you moved my comment in this second paragraph from the separate section where I had it. I think that makes the discussion harder to follow if anyone else, @Beanyandcecil: for example, wants to weigh in. I'll clarify for his sake and anyone else's, possibly yours as well because it's not clear to me that you understand this, that the first paragraph is about what Sandy said, and the second is about what the state police officer Ware said and testified that he said, and they are talking about different pieces of text in the article. Apart from that, they do both refer, broadly speaking, to the same comment caught on Ware's dash-cam video, yes, however. I am happy to discuss your thoughts on how to do this and fine with you giving it some thought/time. There is a lot of material on this and thought is a good thing. My focus at the moment is on structure, as discussed with Beany above.

I'll say again however,because you should realize this for purposes of weight, that the Alibi is a good source and David Correia, who wrote a lot of their coverage, is a) a professor of American studies at UNM, and b) a spokesman for the protestors. He's RS at a minimum for his own position and the history he's citing is both verifiable and verified by me. The Journal is totally an RS by wikipedia standards but deeply tied to the local patron system. However, one and maybe two of their reporters have been following the police violence story forever, longer than I have anyway, so they have a story on most milestones and even some pretty good explainers towards the end. The best coverage of the *Boyd* case imho -- and I have read almost all of it -- was from KRQE. Publichealthnm.org (I think the URL is) did some thoughtful stories on various shootings including this one. It's important to realize that the police have a long history of shooting mentally ill citizens and they always say they threatened them with a weapon and the shooting was necessary for safety reasons. This is why people don't really believe it in this instance. If you encounter Heath Haussamen's nmpolitics, or nmindepth by mattew reichbach (sp?) or freeabq or Joe Monahan, these are well-respected local independent journalists, though unabashedly right-wing in the case of the latter. Pete Dinelli has several guest editorials in various publications, but he is a politician and while I think his history is accurate, his stuff needs to be checked for spin. Elinruby (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I moved your comment - we do not need (and should not have) two separate sections on the same talkpage to discuss the same issue simultaneously. One section on the "penis" quote is all that's needed, and two is just going to cause confusion. See the very first point of the talk page guildelines - I urge both of you two to read/re-read that page and take it to heart btw, this talk page is extremely confusing to follow.

I agree that Correia is a valid source for his own opinions, that's fine - but if he is, as you say, the spokesmen for the protesters, then he's also clearly a WP:BIASED source and we want to be careful not to state his opinion as fact when it conflicts with other RS, or when what he says is debatable. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

His comments on the history are accurate, at least the ones I've checked. But by that token can probably be attributed to other sources, to the extent we need them, so whatever. I don't think any of the New Mexico sources are unbiased, personally. Especially not the official police department pronouncements. The statement and Ware's testimony about the statement are two different things. I wish you'd worry less about a remark Sandy definitely made and more about the actual POV pushing. Elinruby (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

while I am at it - helmet cam

Yes, it was a helmet cam, as per previous discussion, you are right. APD issues lapel cams but I remember we established that Perez had a helmet cam as well, presumably his own. Moving too fast for my own good Elinruby (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

hey @Beanyandcecil: when someone reverts you you're supposed to talk to them before you put the edit back in again. But never mind the etiquette, just stop for a sec. I changed "none" to "one" because it turns out that the video that was first released and that is at bottom of the page was from Perez' helmet cam. Apparently you agree since you added it.

So. The lawyer representing the family said "none" but it seems he was wrong; or, alternately, that this fact had not been made public yet. I think for a long time there was just "the video" and then as the hearings and trials got coverage other videos surfaced. I don't have a source for that handy but I think it is true and if the reference you have on that statement you added supports this --- I haven't checked yet -- then that's fantastic and we can move on. However, despite what the lawyer says in the interview that references "none", if that is indeed Perez' helmet cam video, then what the lawyer says is erroneous and we should not quote it. We know Perez shot Boyd. He was the bullet in the torso. So one of the videos belongs to someone who shot Boyd. "None" and "Perez" cannot both be true.

It's a silly little point but the story is complicated enough without adding in extra confusion. I am open to suggestions on how to fix it. The reference still supports "chaotic scene" and we do need to have a reference for that. He was saying that the APD was disorganized and the fact that they didn't have video from the shooters demonstrated this. His point is moot if it was Perez' video. We could just take out the part that says "one" and deal elsewhere with the question of what was up with Sandy's video. Elinruby (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

this is still dubious and there's a reason why the tag says discuss

Police shootings have dropped since the DOJ Report was released and the APD instituted changes in policy and training to conform to the consent decree." As a result of the consent decree APD officers now receive training on how to minimize the use of force in high stress situations. The court monitor said, "The SWAT unit has become one of the strongest teams within the department." Officers have used their guns less since receiving this training. In 2013 eight shootings results in death or injuries. In 2015 that number dropped to five. Officers used their guns 15 times in 2013 and 10 times in 2015.

never heard of the patriot ledger

I didn't realize that one had to run a news source past you to see if you'd heard of it. Are you now the approving authority for material and citations? Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

and the web page runs a bunch of scripts.

Yes, and? Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

red flag for clickbait. Elinruby (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Can't find a written editorial policy, which is needed usually to be RS.

usually needed but not always, right? It appears that you've unilaterally decided that because you Can't find a written editorial policy that the site is not a RS? If you can find some RS's that state that the Patriot Ledger is not reliable, please show them to us. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It might possibly be a mediocre mainstream newspaper but it's not demonstrated.

Please let us know when you find some information that supports your contention that it's not RS. I haven't found anything in WP policy that says that " a mediocre mainstream newspaper " can't be used. Can you direct us to such a policy please? Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, you want it, *you* go read the policy. Elinruby (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

And then there is why I should trust a mediocre mainstream newspaper based in new england to be accurate on the number of Albuquerque police shootings. Well?

I really don't care if you trust it or not. I've not seen anything in WP policy that prohibits its use. If you have something that does, please show it to us. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It's AP and some paper that's in the SouthWest, at least, probably ran this. If you can find it in a Las Cruces or Tucson paper maaaaaybe, but again, this is AP

I'm confident that AP refers to the Associated Press, a venerated news co−op that's been around for about 170 years. Are you questioning their reliability? Are you questioning the reliability of the author? "ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — Mary Hudetz, a former Associated Press journalist and current editor of Native Peoples Magazine in Phoenix, will return to the AP in August to become the news cooperative’s law enforcement reporter in Albuquerque." So Ms. Hudetz writes a story as the "NW LE Reporter." It goes out to the AP and only the Patriot Ledger picks it up. I'm not surprised that the Albuquerque media didn't pick it up, it's not nearly as sensational as stories about the shooting or the trial. It doesn't fit into the "If it bleeds it leads" mentality that much of the media is about these days. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC) Citation updated Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

and I smell a police chief press release.

Perhaps it was, so what? If the Chief has the stats, there's nothing inappropriate about releasing it. But I think that if it was, it would probably have been described as such. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

If you want that in there it needs to be better sourced than that.

Not according to WP policy. In fact, there are cautions against over sourcing. One is sufficient. If you can find some stats that are published in a RS that contradict what is in the news article, of course, you are free to cite them. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Also please fix the quotes in this paragraph if you put it back in. There's one missing and it's unclear which parts are quotes. Elinruby (talk) 04:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks. Beanyandcecil (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Additional Info: Ms. Hudetz' article on the AP wire was also picked up by PoliceOne.com., and Yahoo News 05:53 6 November 2016 (UTC)

PLEASE take this to the reliable sources noticeboard. Policeone is going away when I get around to it. I am pretty sure that THAT RePORTeR is the one who didn't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun according to you. I believe you on this and therefore the editorial review part is important. Wire service stories are ok as far as they go but they are usually significantly different from one another because of local newspaper editing and updating. And that is a matter of the publication not the author. Even if you manage to prove it's a mediocre mainstream newspaper, you're trying to use it to refute something the federal DoJ monitor said, as reported in I think it was the Albuquerque Journal. which has to be regarded a) as the newspaper of record, b) a RS according to wikipedia standards. Usually I would disagree, but that's the default and in the case of this story one or two Journal reporters have been closely following the storyall along so I agree in this case. c)Also, since it's local daily it's not using the story as filler to plug a hole on the page, it's running because it's important to their readers and they're going to fact-check and and update it because they'll get angry phone calls if they print something wrong. Theoretically anyway. So we believe the story, and we believe the federal monitor, because by default we believe the government and there is no reason to question his integrity or competence ie he's probably right. @Fyddlestix: can you give me a hand here trying to explain this please?

• In other news, Policeone is almost certainly not a reliable source for this story. All of the above questions for policeone also. Elinruby (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The local paper didn't use the AP story because they covered it themselves. Don't be ridiculous. Just use their version. Elinruby (talk) 14:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't see a problem with the Hudetz article. I might have cited the AP story itself rather than the Patriot Ledger, but even so the ledger is a perfectly reputable paper (see the wiki article, it's actually won numerous journalism awards). Associated Press stories are generally reliable, and a very large chunk of the content in most newspapers is from AP. A quick search suggests that multiple large, respectable papers (Miami Herald, for example) also ran the same story, and that numerous ABC affiliates picked it up as well. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem, assuming you are right about all that, is that he wants to use it instead of more recent local coverage that says otherwise Elinruby (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, what/where is the more recent coverage that you think is better? If they disagree then we probably need to discuss both viewpoints. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I posted it above somewhere, will find and post here. Elinruby (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

MAJOR balance problem re the prosecutor

the section about Brandenburg has been edited to the point where we have four paragraphs about an accusation being made and and one sentence saying oh by the way the attorney-general found that the accusation was unfounded and made for political reasons. @Beanyandcecil: this needs to be walked back and if you don't I'll be going through there with a weed-whacker, which is what it needs. Elinruby (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Definitely needs work - was that section copy/pasted from somewhere? Some of the references are just numbers (eg, [[66]]), which don't actually link to anything. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Go right ahead. It's quite redundant. I've put a minimum of material in there, yet your statement seems that you think that I've written most of it. I DID move the material on Officer Monette that's obviously completely out of place there, as he had nothing to do with the section heading at all. But for some reason you decided to move it back. Beanyandcecil (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Four paragraphs about an unfounded accusation vs one sentence saying it was unfounded. A minimum? I already told you that every thing the special prosecutor did is currently under special prosecutor. We've agreed this would be better as three sections, appointment of the special prosecutor, preliminary hearing and trial, yet you are only moving the sections you don't like. Sigh. I'll go back to my rewrite now. Elinruby (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Did a first pass since it was an egregious BLP problem. Will be back to check it against the references. Have discovered that Redwine has his own article, which was probably written separately than the section here. I do think he needs to be mentioned as do the other later shootings, but there's a lot of quotation here, almost more than we have about Boyd. Elinruby (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)